16-02-2020, 10:40 AM
11
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Solasch
->
The unlawful prorogation was not about the goal the pm wanted to achieve, but the way to do it.The common people agreed on the goal, hence the election outcome, but not on doing it in an unlawful manner.
But the difference goes above your head.
The real unlawful point was that the supreme court which consists of EU gravy train bent lawyers took it upon themselves to use our legal system for political gain.
They should be in jail for over ruling the prerogative powers of the prime minister and the queen.
16-02-2020, 02:48 PM
12
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Bread
->
The real unlawful point was that the supreme court which consists of EU gravy train bent lawyers took it upon themselves to use our legal system for political gain.They should be in jail for over ruling the prerogative powers of the prime minister and the queen.
17-02-2020, 12:08 AM
14
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Percy Vere
->
Showing off your Latin, Solly?Dura lex, ced lex = The law is harsh, but it is the law.
17-02-2020, 08:37 AM
16
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Solasch
->
Well, it took a verdict of the highest british court to show politicians that what they wanted was unlawful. Perhaps the common people understood this better than your politicians?
The Supreme Court made up a new law then applied it retrospectively..
It didn't help their Remainer cause and it means their wings will rightly be clipped at some point during this Parliament.
17-02-2020, 02:29 PM
17
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Moscow
->
That's not strictly true.The Supreme Court made up a new law then applied it retrospectively..
It didn't help their Remainer cause and it means their wings will rightly be clipped at some point during this Parliament.
17-02-2020, 02:50 PM
18
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Solasch
->
So you still don't understand the principles of case law? There is no applying retrospectively of case law. It turns into a case law after after a verdict, and it can only be utilized in future cases.
So when the EU gravy trains bent lawyers in the Supreme Court had the opportunity to shaft the will of the people, they took their opportunity to become political and make a ruling on the unlawful prerogative decision of the Prime Minister, something that now (it seems) needs permission from the courts to do in the future.
Hence Moscow's point earlier which lead to you googling up something from the internet again
17-02-2020, 03:46 PM
19
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Bread
->
Hence Moscow's point earlier which lead to you googling up something from the internet again
17-02-2020, 03:54 PM
20
Re: Ex-diplomat Warning to Brussels.
Originally Posted by Bread
->
Since when was the supreme court and the legal system able to rule on political decisions ? Up until the proroguing case, the legal system was independent of politics, which is why the Prime Minister has "prerogative".
On the ground that the Court was being called upon to rule only upon the scope of the prorogation power: that is, on whether the power extended to doing what had been done in this case. Questions about the scope of legal powers are, self-evidently, legal questions that are justiciable before courts of law. That the answer to that question might have implications in the political realm, and that the question arose in a febrile political context, did not detract from the essentially legal nature of the issue before the Court.
|
|
